Slashdot Mirror
Steam Powered Underwater Jet Engine
Bob Vila's Hammer writes "An Australian engineer, Alan Burns invented a very efficient underwater steam powered jet engine. "Steam that is produced from a petrol or gasoline fueled boiler emerges at high speed from a rearward-facing ring-shaped nozzle into a cone-shaped chamber. Shock waves created as the steam condenses are focused by the chamber to blast water out of the back. Besides powering watercraft pretty efficiently, it can also be used as an extremely robust pump. Pretty Cool."
The engine
*nix.org -- Latest article: "IBM Set to Replace AIX with Linux"
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
This makes me want to play AquaNox all the more! How else to make a high-powered combat submarine? A little supercavitating external hull with this propulsion and we're ready to rock and roll.
One thing I'm curious about is why they can only be scaled to 300 horsepower... Seems like if a 20 cm one can put out 30 HP, a big one could put out a lot more. It also might be fun to install a 20 cm one into a ketchup dispenser at McDonald's or something. And also, will it shoot potatos?
It is also robust, and can easily cope if seaweed or rope are drawn into the inlet. What about a whale?
Todman shoved large quantities of lard and cardboard into the inlet without the pump suffering any ill effects.
COWBOYNEAL NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
The water-jet engine was invented by a New Zealander some years ago. The difference with this thing is it uses compressed steam rather than the usual propellar
Forget submarines, I'm attaching this to my SCUBA equipment!!!
This is something that would really be great in areas where there are lots of scuba divers or manatees. I have seen the results of flesh being chewed up by prop blades. Not pretty.
I remember reading in a super-cavtation article about underwater engines like that - basically "underwater jet-engines" - I mean, of course it's not quite true, it operates on different principles, but the functionality is pretty similar.
;-)
btw, super cavtation is where you make the nose of your _insert_vessel_here_ blunt but it goes so fast that the vapor pressure drops until the vessel (usually a torpedo / bullet / whatever) would be in an airbubble (technically steam bubble! - though there are dissolved air that boils into the bubble too) that it creates itself (and maintains) and hence has no liquid drag for the rest of the vessel (as in, besides the blunt nose).
The engine I read about was actually reacting seawater directly with aluminum shavings and expelling hot steam (or something like that). I am pretty sure there were something else but I can't remember what it was (I don't think it was iron-rust, though, for all of you thinking of thermite). Anyway - neat stuff; should change underwater combat a whole lot.
should get myself one of those to go war(ship) driving
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Sounds to me like it's full of hot air.
Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
Sure, me too...I prefer steamed flesh any day, over chopped-by-prop mammals, who doesnt't?
I think I might try to build one for my 12' aluminum boat :)
I wonder how easily I can make this in my school's machine shop. Probably with a few days of free time and a $30 of stock, I can make myself a motor that won't hurt the mutant fish in the Hudson River.
Thanks for giving me something to do in my free time!
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
What's being served on this underwater flight, freshly-steamed halibut?
WhatEVA
From the article: With no moving internal parts, and no propeller, the engine should be cheap to manufacture.
I especially like the part about no moving parts... Moving parts are good to avoid in all cases, when possible... They wear and need replacement. Nice one!
.: Max Romantschuk
Nuclear powered, although if it were a submarine, I would think it would be too loud to be useful.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
I highly doubt this would become mainstream in any smaller craft. The design would require revamping most current hull designs to accomodate an intake for better waterflow to the motor. This would take up valuable space. I dont know how many /.ers are serious about fishing, but I like having as much space in my boat as possible. Also, how big is the motor? It might be far too cumbersome to fit in anything less than a 20 foot boat. How much does it weigh? For all I know it could sink a jetski, an area where this could apply.
It is estimated that a gazillion fish die every day from cold. This new jet engine provides a wonderful means of transportation and enriches the lives of nearby sea food.
and in only 15 years we'll be seeing one power some sort of vehicle on Junkyard Wars / Scrapheap Challenge...
One step closer to magneto-hydrodynamic propulsion...
Another 10 years off...
That could be scary. Imagine that thing in your hot tub.
Tim: Ahhhhh... This is great, all we need now is a bit more power. [Grunt] I'll just set it to 500 knots.
*click*
*foom*
Jill: Gargle gargle gargle
Tim: Jill? What are you doing? You know, going underwater in the hot tub isn't good for your ears. Are you listening?
I guess that's a bit off topic... Meh...
"...shockwaves..." This will be damn noisy for those living under water... Noise pollution will increase to the level that those mammals will be no more able use there sonar capabilities
From more to less likely:
(1) Efficiency could peak at 300HP designs - it may be that any larger becomes horribly inefficient. Since it relies on squeezing compressed air and steam into an open tube, there might be a point at which there simply is to much room for the reaction to take place in given an incoming water velocity.
(2) The design may not be completed - possible design flaws may limit this versions' abilities to scale up.
(3) They may simply not know how big it can scale if their simulator isn't powerful enough to run a detailed simulation of a larger engine.
...aren't they the same thing?
Eagles soar, but wease^H^H^H^H^Hwhales don't get sucked into jet engines?
live(free) || die;
to completely pulverize organic matter! You have the Tornado in a can and now a super powered steam engine! From the article...
;-)
"It doesn't simply mix -- it macerates," says Todman.
One question... What if they run into a school of tuna?
Your actions in life will determine your children's future.
Come on, that has to be a joke.
Well, I'm sure somone else has noted this : a nuclear energy source like on a warship would be perfect for supplying the steam. By venting the secondary steam from the boilers directly into the water like this you could easily get ten times the power with the same size engine (though you'd need more higher output reactors) I am sure an engine like this would be EXTREMELY noisy, so the warship would have a set of these steam jets it could fire up when it needs to move somewhere fast, and some quieter source when submarines are a worry. Imagine an aircraft carrier and a few destroyer escorts with flank speeds in excess of 70 knots (it would have to have hydrofoils as well, because otherwise the hull speed would be to limiting. Yes I'm aware it might be decades before a carrier this sexy is built, if ever). Sure it would be vulnerable to torpedoes, but the idea is it could be a MUCH more threatening weapon with this kind of speed. It could patrol a larger area, escape from danger, and have a certain intimidation factor when its located somewhere since it could arrive suddenly, launch a strike force, and depart before the enemy was aware.
As long as were speculating, imagine an even more effective weapon, a ship loaded full of missiles and rocket launched drone strike aircraft (so no human pilots risked. Yes I'm aware that such aircraft might be say, half as effective as human piloted planes but if they cost 1/4 as much to build its a MUCH more effective weapon. It could very well be cheaper to turn out somewhat dumb long range missiles and semi-reusable drones by the thousands, with no additional pilot training needed. The "pilots" would be a group of technicians behind consoles far from the battle, with embedded computing in the planes doing most of the flying, the human being just to pull the trigger. Without all the risks of training pilots and maintaining aircraft (the planes would be stored in sealed containers until needed, with a small set used for training) and the fact that these planes don't need nearly the quality control in manufacturing (if you lose 10% of them in a mission due to shoddy construction but they cost half as much or less to build its definitely worth the trade off) you'd have a better solution than at the present.
Why isn't this done already? Well, in the 1970s and earlier where most of the present airplanes were designed, communications technology and computers were not good enough or reliable enough. Today, most of the money is spent on operations and on a couple of new aircraft. Also, the current leadership is made up of pilots, who don't want to be replaced by scrawny pasty faced techs sitting at control stations. Finally, there's a current bandwidth problem : military communication satalleits don't have the capacity for the hundreds or thousands of video links needed.
This guy needs this. Some cool shit is on the way...
The drive was invented by Australian engineer Alan Burns and developed in Britain by engineers at Pursuit Dynamics in Royston, Hertfordshire. Last week, New Scientist witnessed a version just 20 centimetres long develop around 30 horsepower (22 kilowatts) in a test tank, enough to power a speedboat. But the company says it can be scaled up to about 300 horsepower.
ok, I finally got in to read the article, it's only 4 or 5 degrees C above the ambient temperature, but I still think there would be environmentalists whining about it
am wondering how you get this engine started?
:)
That's the exact same thing I was just wondering. The best way for me to find out is to go build one and try it! I'll be sure to make a website once I do it, and after that, I'll try to stand up to the litigation from Pursuit Dynamics
Seriously though, it looks like there's a small venturi at the exit of the steam chamber which would focus the steam backwards and start the process. Also, if you don't have steam pressure (any time the boiler is off overnight), the water will flow in the steam supply line. When you start it, the steam probably pushes the water out, generating a small current that builds as the engine starts working.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
It's a pity that the stall speed of most modern fighter aircraft is around 150 knots. Imagine how easy carrier landings would be if you and the carrier could head into the wind and the carrier would match speed with the fighter!
Underwater Jet wreaking underwater havoc?
TechnologyPosted by michael on Wednesday
from the please-thinkof-the-dolphins dept.
Bob Vila's Hammer writes "An evil Australian engineer, Alan Burns invented a very cruel underwater steam powered fish-killer/ocean polluter. "Steam that is produced from a petrol or gasoline fueled boiler emerges at high speed from a rearward-facing ring-shaped nozzle into a cone-shaped chamber. Shock waves created as the steam condenses are focused by the chamber to blast water out of the back, instantly killing hoards of hapless sea-life". Looks like another win for big oil and corporate America. Thanks George W.
I love the way technological evolution works:
Diesel Powered -> Nuclear Powered -> Wood-fired subs!
I could use this...always wanted a PWC (personal water craft for you non-educated types) that could do 150+ mph.
... jet engines vs. propellors did for 'planes, we got a winner. But if i remember rightly (no expert here, don't hurt me), the advantages to aircraft are higher power to weight ratio and lower maintanance costs. Only one of these (the latter) seems to be really relevant in the water :( Any thoughts?
BTW when checking this with google, look at the first link i got: http://www.dkgroup.dk/hydro2.html - the "Hydro Air Drive", yet another related idea.
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
Or so they'll tell you. :o)
I dont see ever an australian using a term like 'gasoline' or hell even gallons.
otherwise you sound ignorant
If the dolphins complain, then we can just give them complimentary underwater-jet-packs. Then, on romantic moonlit nights, passengers on cruise ships can watch the playful dolphins jump over the boat.
heheheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ROFL
/. Seems to me it takes more cycles to track and report back on a speedy submittal than it does to just simply take it in...what a load of admin bs.
"...a fair chance at posting a comment"
Heaven forbid I and I alone should task the capacity of the great and powerful
Thats because he really meant Americans, but Americans can't spell.
I wonder how small an effective boiler can be made. Gives new meaning to the idea of letting the engine warm up. People have been working with steam power for a very long time, but new materials for the steam generation part could perhaps give this invention an incredible array of applications.wow.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
This sounds amazing:
* Cheap to produce
* Incredibly robust (no moving parts)
* Efficient (although they don't give any numbers)
* Safe(r) for the environment
* Multiple uses (pumps)
* Scales well in a small package
Without seeing any numbers, it sounds like it beats the pants off of outboard engines. My 70HP Evinrude has been rebuilt twice because of sand-suckage, and standard jet impellers are too inneficient.
So what's the catch? I want to see some real numbers. If there's no catch, then I hope and think this thing will revolutionize the small-craft market.
I doubt this engine will be loud as those military sonar tests - 100+dBs and more.
I'm pretty sure those sonar tests are the reason for those beached whales. If the only way to avoid your ears and brains being blasted to pulp is to get out of the water, you do it, whether you weigh 20 tons or not.
I read it as 'steak-powered' :D
Do the bubbles make it more efficient because they seed the sockwaves or is there something more elegant at work?
From the article:
:-)
"The steam drive can also function as an extremely robust pump. It can shift water, sewage or oil, and in a demonstration for New Scientist, Todman shoved large quantities of lard and cardboard into the inlet without the pump suffering any ill effects."
So the real question is when will someone make one big enough to become the first under water roller coaster?
Furthermore:
"It doesn't simply mix -- it macerates," says Todman".
Hmmm... macerates... "to soften and cause to disintegrate as a result"... oh well... just don't turn it up all the way
Water emerging from the engine is no more than 3 or 4 C warmer than the water it draws in, so there is no danger of scalding.
:
It always amazes me to see how technoscientists can draw conclusion so fast as far as it goes in their direction. A difference of 3 or 4 degrees is ENORMOUS ! It can totaly change an ecosystem or current and exchange mode localy.
The boats usualy cruise in the same places
- Big commercial boats have to cruise in well defined corridors when they comme along the coast
- Personnal jetspeed motorcycles (and such) usualy cruise from 0 to 300 meters on the coast
- What about small closed gulfs seeing their nautic population multiplied by 3 or more during the summer.
When you think that coral is dying in some places in the world because the global temperature raised by about 0.5 C or because such or such current has changed is way, I can let you immagine what a disaster on a local level could cause a 3 to 4 C increase !!!
Now, I am not saying that 3 C différence out of the engine will make such a difference on the global level. But saying that such a difference will not be a problem seems a little to fast conclusion to me without any further study...
---
If something can go wrong, it will ! (murphy's law)
buckminster fuller, who coined many terms, among them synergy, came up with two words to describe application of technology - killingry and livingry
ok, they're not as hip sounding as synergy, but i'm sure you get what they mean - and buck fuller devoted his life to creating livingy such as the geodesic dome and his many other inventions
so why, i wonder, when the article in new scientist has nothing to say about 'defense' applications are there so many posts like yours inthis thread about using this invention in military applications? to quote george w bush out of context, you're either with us or against us - on the side of livingry or on the side of killingry
From the article: "We know the answer," says Mike Todman, the company's chief technical officer, [..] But he says it will not be revealed until patents are granted.
Now, this is the sort of thing for which patents were made. I can respect these guys for wanting to patent their engine - it's innovative, non-obvious (well, to me anyway..) and they appear to have put a lot of work into it.
One of these patents is worth a thousand "Amazon / 1-click", "SBC / Web Frames" or "British Telecom / Hyperlinks" patents, yes?
"Enginuity"? Must be a phrase among local rocket scientists.
I was thinking more of the possibility for torpedo engines - if it's small, cheap, powerful, and fast (and sufficiently fuel-efficient, which the article didn't mention was good or bad about this) it may be more effective for making anti-ship weapons than faster ships.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
but how does this differ from the heat (and noise) put out by current engines, most of which output their exhaust underwater. Hok
i think it's a reference to the sarich orbital engine.
That would make it a Self Contained Underwater Boogie Aparatus.
cat
You also couldn't reverse the thing the same way you reverse a normal vessel, but, hey, just run a small set of pipes to the front and a miniature one of these jet gadgets and you've got instant bow thrusters :)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
. . . Todman shoved large quantities of lard and cardboard into the inlet without the pump suffering any ill effects. It could even mix materials used by the food industry. "It doesn't simply mix -- it macerates," says Todman.
Interesting, this sounds very much like the Windhexe story which was posted a couple months ago.
Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
If we are boiling seawater for steam, the toughest thing would be keeping the boiler clear of fouling, scaling or similar failure. Anything that attacks the heat exchange characteristics of the boiler could make your pile overheat.
Either a high throughput filtration plant inline, or a large reservoir of filtered water for short dashes might be in order.
God, that was fucking beautiful. Sorry for the OT, but I just had to congradulate publicly.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
I think it's funny that scientists testing long range sonar transmission (for temperature measurements) need all sorts of permits, while whaling boats don't. When the whaling boats drive by (the source or the receiver), they completely drown out the test sounds.
Also (just FYI) there is a difference between decibels in and out of water. Levels of tolerability don't overlap. See google for more.
I can't conceive how it will function as a primary power source because of the mechanics that would be necessary to start the process.
In the same manner, you won't have a "neutral" since it probably can't be turned off and on rapidly for docking maneuvers, et al. Perhaps it could use buckets like a jetski (or any jet aircraft using clamshell reversers), but I wonder how well it reacts to a high backpressure created by such a device....
Maybe we'll get to see some of that great KABOOM action when these things explode or when two boats collide!
"But Terry's plan about requires about eight kilos the more fissile Uranium-235 to give her submarine extra staying power."
Team maddog member: Hey expert, is this ok? It's making my hair fall out just like you said.
Terry: Nah. That's full of U-238. It doesn't even get warm when I mash it into the other block U-235 that we found under the coke machine. See?
Team maddog member #2: Ok, how about this thing I found - I think it's some kind of centrifuge... and here's a couple of toothbrushes.
"With only eight hours to go, will team maddog or team smoke hammer be the first to retrieve the lost case of original kenner Star Wars merchandise from the bottom of this six inch deep lake?"
As for patrolling a larger area, the bubble around the carrier is a 1.000 nautical miles radius (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/airc raft/air-fa18.html), so what's the point of making 35 more miles in an hour?
;-)
/. is lame and adds a space to URLs for no reason, so your link actually confused me until I noticed the unnessesary %20 in the URL.
Actually I believe you meant to use the comma, not the period.
"CAPITAIN! Incomming enemy planes! They've got missles locked and ready to fire!"
"How far away are they?!?!"
"1.700 nautical miles!!"
"Damn! WE'RE FINISHED!"
Also, please be kind and link to your references. I'm more likely to read if I don't have to copy and paste. Besides,
Some interesting facts from that page:
Range:
Combat: 1,089 nautical miles (1252.4 miles/2,003 km), clean plus two AIM-9s
Ferry: 1,546 nautical miles (1777.9 miles/2,844 km), two AIM-9s plus three 330 gallon tanks
Ceiling: 50,000+ feet
Speed: Mach 1.7+
So any carrier which carries the FA-18 Hornet is pretty well protected. IANANM (I am not a Navy Man), but how many of the carriers have the FA-18s on them?
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
mmmmm... Flipper...
I get so hungry when I go to SeaWorld.
(mahi mahi is for hippies)
Cool, I can finnaly build my own personal Phoenix and cruise down Center Neptune to join the rest of G-force.
...boat.
or perhaps a sub.
Next, you'll be referring to your car as your PRIC (Personal Ride-In Carriage)...
Either that or you'll be talking about 'monetizing' the damn things. Makes me feel dirty just mentioning the word.
Probably not.
Looking at the design, it looks rather like a pulse jet, and appears to operate on similar lines.
Now pulse jets (as used on the V-1 'buzz bomb' in WWII) are inherently loud.
Fucking loud.
Loud enough that noone uses them commercially, even though they're cheap, simple and relatively efficient.
I wonder what sort of noise the shock wave of the rapidly decompressing steam makes?
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Compare this image of an injector to this image of this steam propulsion system, I don't think they're that far apart.
I'm definitely not belittling these folks' creation, I think it's interesting that an old (mid-nineteenth century) invention is related to this new propulsion system, using the condensation of steam in cone-shaped orifices to draw in water and shoot it out the end.
Engineers should be forced to study railroads, they were the high-tech of 150 years ago, and they actually invented many things, most especially modern telecommunication networking!!!!
Looks like an application of the Coanda Effect... High volume low pressure fluid pulls working fluid through a nozzle. There was a huge article about it in Analog a number of years back. As I recall, the author used it as a pump as well as a jet engine (both water and air). For air, he used propane instead of steam and just lit it up. The burning propane pulled air in through the front end quite handily.
The moral of the story is: "Always remember to mount a scratch monkey."
I read that as steam powered underware, I was really disapointed when it turned out to be more boreing...
-You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
Imagine an aircraft carrier and a few destroyer escorts with flank speeds in excess of 70 knots...
Yah, and at that speed you could just untie the jet fighters and they could take off without even turning on their engines...
I can practically taste the Manatee burgers now!
It should also make chum pretty well, allowing people in dingies to catch sharks better. Good thing sharks arent almost extinct or anything...
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Seems like a reasonable way to start the flow, but how do you throttle it up or down? IANAAerospaceEngineer, nor have I had fluid dynamics training beyond undergrad classes, but the condensation-generated shockwave would seem to work in a very narrow window. Increase or decrease the steam flow by much and the shockwave either moves out the back of the jet or up into the mixing chamber.
When I fish, the throttle is rarely full-open.
Mind you, the invention would still be awesome for ocean-traversing ships, where constant thrust for long distances is the rule of thumb. I just don't see the value for the small bass boat.
... fuel, efficiency, fragility. Consider this:
... as in the Navy's big ships. And how does the efficiency of transferring steam's energy into liquid motion compare to that of a propellor?; and
1) Maintenacnce of Boiler - boilers are not trivial creatures. They run hot and need regular maintenance. And I want to see the boiler that runs on _salt_ water and doesn't have a _big_ maintenance budget (look up salt water evaporators);
2) Efficiency - boilers aren't great at converting the heat energy to steam unless they get quite fancy
3) No moving parts - is a red herring. The question is how fragile are your parts? Little holes get clogged up pretty quickly, not necessarily when running, but when the thing is stopped. And cardboard doesn't compare to what is really out there. What happens when a piece of plywood jams into the throat of the nozzle and blocks, or just restricts, water flow?
It's a neat idea but I think it's a solution looking for a problem.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
What do you mean by robust? High pressure? High volume?
This idea seems like it wouldn't be good in applications that would require alot of negative head pressure - meaning applications where it has to work to draw its water in...like sucking water from the bottom of a well.
It also - at first glance - appears that it wouldn't be well suited for applications that required alot of exhaust pressure - like pushing water from the bottom of a hill to the top.
Too much pressure on the exhaust nozzle of the thing, if it is similar to a jet engine, would disrupt what's going on inside the pump (when the weight of the water it has to push becomes greater than the force it can exert, water flows backwards through the engine, and it stops working - same happens in a jet motor if it gets turned around and tries to fly backwards), and it would suddenly turn into a boiler instead of a pump.
If it had to work too hard to intake water, steam would flow the wrong way, and *POOF* your pump turns into a boiler again.
In applications like a boat motor or some sort of sump pump where volume is the key, not pressure it would be fine. So - in this armchair physicist's opinion - this thing would be great for sucking water out of your basement, but not too good for pumping water in a fire truck.
However, the problem of cavatation is completely nullified - so that's cool. It will probably be an order of magnitude more efficient than conventional pumps once perfected, though it may not scale well.
The temperature of the exhaust water is still hotter than the ambient temperature of the ocean, right? That's going to make the EPA mad, cause algae blooms, and potentially mess with the ecosystems in areas where this would be used. Interesting. I doubt it gets adopted anywhere for that fact alone, nevermind the problems of scaling this up to a real-sized engine.
In a regular water-jet engine, the internal propeller is powerful enough to suck water in from an intake mounted in the hull of the boat (as seen in your regular jet-ski). This, of course, is a huge advantage as the craft don't go as deep, and the intake is less likely to be damaged by underwater rocks (skerries?) and such.
Would this new solution require that the intake is vertical, forcing water into it at high speed? Or is the suck powerful enough to use a regular intake?
Couldn't find information about that...
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
While I totally agree with your conclusions, I would like to argue a little bit about your methodology.
All water propulsion systems convert energy to water heat by friction (if there were no friction, it would require no energy to travel through the water). This means that the water heating properties of any water engine is corresponding to the energy it consumes. Thus all you have to do is take the energy of the fuel you consumed and divide it with the heat capacity of water. In other words, how much water gets heated is just a function of the efficiency of the engine. This disregards heating of the air around the engine, but this is probably an OK approximation, considering how much better water conducts heat than air.
Tor
Try reading over how a Steam Injector works. The workings of this engine should click for you fairly quickly.t .html
http://ukhrail.uel.ac.uk/glossary/injec
I like Sushi. So it looks like I'll be sticking with the propellers.
:)
Besides, everyone knows, you want your fish broiled, not steamed!
thanks for the correction
did a quick search on synergy+heylin+fuller which turned up this extract of the oed online which supports your advice
I'd imagine that just throttling the flow of steam into the chamber would do the trick nicely. The heat source for the boiler could be throttled as well.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"